15 January 2006
New East Asia forum is fuelling
optimism
In
2006, East Asia faces several old as well as new challenges. In addition to issues such as terrorism, separatist insurgencies, nuclear proliferation, and expensive energy
supplies, there is the challenge of creating a pan-Asian free trade bloc that would lay
the groundwork for an East Asian community
and eventually an East Asian union.
To
deal successfully with this, Asian countries need first to tackle
tensions affecting the region’s stability, particularly among the Northeast Asian
economies of China, Japan, and South Korea.
Without improving relations
among these powers and riding
them of their wartime memories, the region may
not be able to move forward. In other words, a stable Northeast Asia facilitates integration and means better economic
prospects for all.
Asian nations also need to work harder to upgrade the status of a number of less developed countries among their grouping. The challenge here is not how to promote these partners’ economic status. It is rather
how to encourage their regimes
to launch considerable political reforms and abandon violations of human rights. The best example is the
challenge posed by Myanmar, whose
military regime still refuses any sort of political openness and consequently causes embarrassment for its partners in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
East Asia, however,
is lucky to have a numbers of platforms which can be
used for meaningful
dialogues and confidence-building.
ASEAN is one of these platforms. Another is the ‘ASEAN plus 3” forum, a grouping that includes
ASEAN’s 10 members plus China, Japan,
and South Korea, and holds
summit meetings, usually on
the sidelines of the annual ASEAN summit.
In
December last year, a historic summit in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur, comprising
leaders from the ASEAN
countries, China, Japan, South
Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand, launched a new forum for
annual talks on strategic issues concerning East Asia.
This
has fuelled optimism among Asians and
was viewed by many as an important step for several reasons. The joining of the grouping by the three Northeast
Asian nations serves as an indication of their willingness to come to terms with
their feuds. This also would lessen the
possibility of the Sino-Japanese rivalry intensifying to an extent that it leads
to ASEAN members taking sides with one against the other.
The inclusion of India into the mainstream
of East Asia regional integration means that the
definition of East Asia has been expanded to link the two
emerging Asian giants (China and India) for better employment of their resources and economic
and scientific capabilities in the region’s development, progress, and security.
The inclusion of Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, serves as evidence that the
region’s leaders no longer emphasize
on Asian cultural or ethnic
identity as a pre-condition
for joining their groupings. It indicates
that they recognize the consequences
of the globalization tide and are ready
to give East Asia a new face. This is unlike the situation 15 years ago when
Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, then
Malaysia’s prime minister, first
called for an Asian union
on the European Union
model. Malaysia under Mahathir
repeatedly rejected any role
by Australia or New Zealand
in shaping the future of East Asia, not only because of their European heritage but also because of their deep involvement in Western strategies. This also points to a
development in Jakarta’s policy,
which has until recently opposed the inclusion of Australia into any Asian
integration plan on the
background of Canberra’s post-9/11 announcement that it could
launch pre-emptive strikes against terrorist bases in the neighbouring countries.
Analysts believe the first problem
to be faced by the new grouping is its future relationship
with ASEAN and “ASEAN plus
3”. In other words, the problem would
be how to promote cooperation and coordination with the other
two bodies without any functional clash,
contradiction, or inconsistency. Rivalry
among some members over who
should be the driving force of the grouping is
another problem.
Moreover, the sixteen
members will have to decide soon on whether Russia can be part of the new forum. Russia is reportedly keen
on joining with the hope of re-establishing its diminished international influence. While
it may be
welcomed by some members on the pretext of counter-balancing the possible dominance of China - the
same has been said to justify the inclusion of India – or because of interest in
Russian oil and gas, others
may refuse, arguing that too many
parties would complicate the whole process
or that Moscow should first meet
several criteria and be assessed
on them.
*Academic researcher and lecturer on Asian affairs